I've grown weary of the seemingly never-ending debate going on about evolution and creationism being taught in science classrooms in public schools. The discussion started after Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu wrote a piece about some in the Spencer school district trying to inject opposition to Darwinism and a course on the Bible into the curriculum (see article here: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090712/OPINION01/907120306/1001/NEWS).
The Opinion page has been buzzing with letters in response from both Christians and non-Christians. Today was no exception, with four letters printed criticizing a previous letter. The back and forth continues.
I do get tired of some of the mindless commentary made by those attacking Christians (though much of it is not mindless and illogical); however, that's not my concern. You can hardly blame someone without the Holy Spirit in them to not be offended by those suggesting God exists. My commentary today is for the Christians in the midst of the debate.
One thing that needs to be made clear is that we're usually talking about what gets taught in a science classroom. The basis of science is that it is an attempt to explain the natural world. Scientists ask what physical explanations can be made for something happening, and they go about suggesting and testing ideas. By definition, they cannot factor in God in their explanation. God is beyond the natural world. I think we need to get less worked up about the absence of God in the science classroom curriculum. Science doesn't deal in that realm.
If we were to begin including God in the exlanation of how things work, science textbooks would need to only include one word: God. Why is the sky blue? God. Why do things fall to the ground? God. How did that leg heal? God. There are many Christian scientists, many of whom believe God is responsible for Creation. But that is not a scientific response. I think it's time to let this one die. Sure, I'd love for every kid to be exposed to the idea that God created the universe. But that doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Perhaps we should stop asking our science teachers to go out of their sphere of influence to talk about how glorious God is and how his glory shines through the creation, and instead we should start relying on Christians to stay in our biblically commanded sphere of influence, our calling to reveal these things to all the world.
And to reveal them with the motivation of saving souls, not of proving that we are right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I respect the right of teachers of faith to ask "leading questions" (much like I know Shannon does) encouraging their students to consider the influence of God. I'd like to see more of that in science classrooms. One of my favorite interviews in Lee Stroebel's "Case for a Creator" was with astronomer Guillermo Gonzales (who was denied tenure at ISU, presumably for his outspoken belief in creationism). A rough paraphrase: When campus groups look for an atheist to debate, they go to the philosophy department. There are too few atheists in the astronomy department.
ReplyDeletewell said, both of you. i read case for christ in college, and it was a little above my "scientific mental capacity," but i can see how it would help the more "scientific-minded" understand creation from a perspective that they are more comfortable with and knowledgeable in.
ReplyDeletealso, i was at ISU when professor gonzales was denied tenure... there was a lot of heated debate going on all over campus, much of which was between student-ministry groups and churches VS. the known atheist and agnostic club on campus... it went on for weeks, and sadly, none of that debate-from either group-was productive for the purpose of saving souls.
As the resident atheist in this circle, I felt I should reply. Not so much as a non-believer, but as a biology teacher, in which I am also the resident.
ReplyDeleteNo empirical, experimental, or theoretical evidence for "scientific creation" has been published in peer-reviewed science journals, the traditional method whereby scientists communicate the results of research.
The theory of evolution is what is taught because it is what best explains the data in a rational manner.
Creationism has no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to advance knowledge, no way to lead to new discoveries. As far as science is concerned, creationism is a sterile concept.
But with that explanation in mind, I think Shannon's description in his 3rd paragraph sums it up pretty well.
As Tim Berra states in his book; "The National Academy of Science, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The National Association of Biology Teachers, and 72 Nobel Prize winners have all gone on record as supporting evolution and rejecting the teaching of creationism in science classes."
That is not to say that they are not people of faith, most of them are holier than thou. Their position on the teaching of evolution and creationism is based on the science not the religion.